Can a ‘promise of marriage’ hold if the woman is still married? MP High Court says no
Madhya Pradesh HC Rejects Married Woman's Rape-on-Promise Plea
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by a woman challenging the acquittal of a man accused of repeatedly raping her under the pretext of marriage, holding that the evidence did not establish deception and that the alleged promise of marriage was legally untenable as she remained married to another man.
The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh on September 3, 2025, rejected the plea moved by the prosecutrix under Section 413 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the 2024 acquittal of accused Laxman Kahar by a sessions court in Narsinghpur.
The prosecutrix, referred to in court papers as “Victim X,” had alleged that the accused, a relative of her family, maintained a sexual relationship with her for over four years on the promise of marrying her. She claimed that when pressed for marriage, he stalled and eventually refused, citing family objections. According to her testimony, she initially refrained from filing a complaint due to talks of a compromise but later lodged an FIR in May 2023.
The trial court, however, acquitted Kahar in November 2024, holding that the prosecution failed to prove rape under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(2)(च) of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging this decision, the woman argued before the High Court that her testimony and corroborative statements of her brothers established the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Her counsel also cited Supreme Court rulings in Deepak Gulati v. State of Haryana and State of U.P. v. Naushad, where sexual relations obtained under a false promise of marriage were held to constitute rape.
The High Court, after examining the evidence, refused to interfere with the trial court’s order. It noted that the prosecutrix, aged 35 at the time of her deposition, had married nearly two decades earlier and was the mother of three children. While she claimed her husband had deserted her a decade ago, the records revealed that she had not secured a decree of divorce, and maintenance proceedings were still pending. In such circumstances, the bench observed, “there was no question of legal marriage between the prosecutrix and the accused.
The judges also took note of the testimony of her brothers, which contained inconsistencies. One of them admitted he was not aware of the nature of her relationship with the accused, while another turned hostile. Medical examination reports too did not support allegations of sexual assault, showing no fresh injuries and only an old, torn hymen.
Relying on a line of Supreme Court precedents distinguishing consensual sex from rape based on false promise, the bench concluded that the present case did not involve any deception. Assuming for a second that the respondent made a promise and thereafter they entered into physical relations, since the prosecutrix was not divorced, it was not possible for the respondent to marry her even if he wanted to, the court reasoned.
The High Court further underscored that in appeals against acquittal, interference is warranted only where evidence has been ignored or misread leading to miscarriage of justice. Finding no such infirmity, it dismissed the appeal at the admission stage itself.
Case Title: Victim X vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Order Date: September 3, 2025
Bench: Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh